In the battle between the Chevrolet Lumina and the Ford Taurus, the latter not only sold better, it was almost universally considered to be the superior car. The Lumina wasn’t a bad offering, per se: the basic platform was sound, the styling was contemporary, the prices low and the powertrains mostly reliable. But there was one reason the Lumina’s inferiority against its crosstown rival was so disappointing: GM didn’t launch the Lumina until 1990. The Taurus had been on sale for four years, and GM’s much-touted Lumina couldn’t best it.

The Lumina was arguably the least compelling of the four GM-10 (1st generation W-Body) cars. The GM-10 program represented a $7 billion dollar investment in seven factories that were supposed to produce enough sedans and coupes to account for 21% of the American auto market. The Lumina range was also the last to arrive: the Buick Regal, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Pontiac Grand Prix coupes were launched in 1988, although their sedan models arrived in 1990.

The Lumina replaced Chevrolet’s aging Celebrity, which had launched in 1982. It was a bigger car overall: 10 inches longer with a 2.6 inch longer wheelbase, and 350 lbs heavier. It was a more modern car, too: the W-Body platform had four-wheel disc brakes and four-wheel independent suspension. Up front were McPherson struts, coil springs and a stabilizer bar, while the rear had McPherson struts, a stabilizer bar and a plastic transverse leaf spring à la the Corvette. There was no wagon version, unlike the rival Taurus: the Celebrity wagon was replaced by the Lumina APV minivan.

The Lumina’s aerodynamic design didn’t shake up the mid-size sector like the slick Taurus had in 1986. This was because the design had actually been penned seven years earlier, according to the late head of design at GM, Chuck Jordan. It also had some odd elements to it, like squared off wheel arches and a lengthy front overhang.

Of the GM-10s, the Lumina was targeted at families and value-conscious buyers: there were promotional tie-ins with Disney, including TV commercials with Disney characters jumping around the Lumina, and Chevrolet general manager Jim Perkins had declared Chevrolet a “value” brand. To support this, Lumina MSRPs were below those of the Taurus.

The engine lineup started with the venerable Tech IV 2.5 four, with 105 hp and 135 ft-lbs. This was the only W-Body application of the engine: Grand Prix and Cutlass Supreme were available with four-cylinder power for two years (1990-91), but used the much more powerful Quad 4. For 1993, Chevy replaced the Tech IV with the 2.2 four (110 hp, 130 ft-lbs) used in the Cavalier, Beretta and Corsica, before dropping that for the Lumina’s final year. Neither four-banger was especially refined or powerful, and this underscored GM’s lack of enthusiasm for creating competitive four-cylinder engines in the 1980s and early 1990s (the Quad 4 was more modern, sure, but flaky and unrefined.)

The ubiquitous 60-degree Chevrolet V6, now displacing 3.1 liters, was available throughout the Lumina’s run. It had 135 hp and 175 ft-lbs, and 0-60 was accomplished in 10.5 seconds. This was a far superior choice to the four-cylinder, as a four-speed automatic was optional; as with the Cavalier, Corsica and Beretta, the four-cylinder Lumina was saddled with a three-speed automatic. This meant fuel economy was scarcely better in the I-4: gas mileage was 21/28 mpg, while a 3.1/4-spd achieved 19/29 mpg. The bigger engine was standard in the mid-range Euro, which for an extra $2000 over a base four offered a firmer suspension tune, larger 15-inch wheels, standard air-conditioning and an attractive monochromatic exterior treatment.

A standard four-speed automatic wasn’t the only unfortunate omission. During the Lumina’s run, a driver’s airbag was never available despite the increasing number of cars so equipped. Instead, GM used frustrating door-mounted seatbelts.

For 1991, Chevrolet added GM’s first double overhead cam V6, the Twin Dual Cam 3.4 V6. Based on the 60 degree Chevy V6, aluminum heads with belt-driven twin camshafts were grafted onto the old cast iron block. Performance was impressive, with 210 hp and 215 ft-lbs (200hp with the automatic); in contrast, the Taurus SHO’s Yamaha V6 had 220 hp and 200 ft-lbs. Allegedly, the Dual Twin Cam was capable of a lot more power – potentially 275 hp – but GM’s transmission division wasn’t able to engineer a tough enough transmission for a FWD car, or so the rumor goes. Incidentally, the W-Body would eventually receive an engine that had 300 hp – the 5.3 V8-equipped models of the 2000s – but their transmission couldn’t handle that much power, either.

The 3.4 was available in flashy Z34 coupe form, replete with sporty visual additions like ground effects, a unique grille, 16-inch alloy wheels and a louvered hood. Transmissions were a standard five-speed Getrag manual or an optional four-speed automatic. From 1992, an automatic-only Euro 3.4 trim was available for those who preferred a more subtle appearance.

The Z34 was pitted against the Taurus SHO, naturally, in various magazine comparison tests. The results? The Chevy was generally said to be slightly less refined and rev-hungry than the Ford, but with a better stickshift and more low-end torque. The 3.4 revved smoothly up to its 7000rpm redline, but 0-60 times were slightly slower than the SHO (7.1 seconds vs 6.6). The Lumina 3.4 did have a few tricks up its sleeve, though: it ran on regular unleaded, an automatic transmission was optional (the SHO didn’t get one until 1993), and the price was lower. A Z34 coupe retailed for around $17k, while the SHO started at $22k.

Although GM had apparently ordered a detuning of the engine to avoid warranty claims on failed transmissions, they still did not engineer enough durability into the engine itself. It was a shame, as both the engine and the sporty Luminas that featured it were generally better-received by critics than lesser models, although Z34 and Euro 3.4 model sales represented only a fraction of Lumina volume. The Twin Dual Cam V6 was axed from the entire GM lineup in 1997, as GM had a much sturdier engine in its stable that could be fettled for higher performance (the 3800 V6).

Dynamically, lesser Luminas were a mixed bag. Torque steer had been nicely quelled and the W-Body platform was praised for its rigidity and handling ability, but some criticized the poor bump absorption in Euro models. The Chevy was also noisier than its rivals, which contributed to the overall feeling of lower quality and refinement.

Perhaps the Lumina’s greatest flaw was its interior. The dashboard was very horizontally-oriented, making it much less ergonomic than the Taurus’ neat center stack, angled towards the driver. The Lumina’s instrument cluster was oddly scooped out and somewhat hard to read, and the seats were regularly met with criticism for being too flat, firm and unsupportive. Like many other GM sedans, the rear bench was positioned quite low to the floor. There was a nice, low belt line and a low cowl, but forward visibility was hindered by chunky A-pillars. Despite being 9.2 inches longer (1.5 inches in the wheelbase alone) than the Taurus, the Lumina was scarcely more spacious.

Perhaps Car & Driver’s Phil Berg put it best in the launch review of the 1990 Chevrolet Lumina Euro. He said: “What bothers me is that the Lumina performs only slightly better than a Celebrity – a car that was introduced more than 6 years ago. That’s a long time to wait for such an uninspired automobile.”

Despite its late arrival, the Lumina clearly still needed some more work. Buyers agreed. The Lumina may have entered the top 10, but it couldn’t topple the Taurus. Rather than leaving it to linger until 1996 like the other W-Bodies, a completely restyled Lumina on the same platform arrived mid-1994 as a 1995 model.

While Ford extensively and exhaustively benchmarked the Camry and Accord for its new Taurus, Chevy took the budget route. There were low list prices, but rear disc brakes became an option. There was plenty of standard equipment, but the interior was even uglier and scarcely better built. Chevrolet would end up refocusing on the slightly smaller 1997 Malibu, which although riding on the “compact” N-Body platform, was more size appropriate for the segment. The next Chevy W-Body was the 2000 Impala, positioned as more of a full-size offering.

GM had bungled the launch of its first new mid-size Chevy of the 1990s, and despite lengthy delays, the end result wasn’t terribly impressive. It wasn’t a bad car, per se, but it lacked the finesse of a Taurus. The subsequent Lumina was even more of a disappointment because it resolutely showed that Chevrolet wasn’t aspiring to have the best mid-size sedan on the market. It’s no wonder that after two disappointing generations, Chevrolet retired the Lumina nameplate in North America.

A very special thanks to Curbsiders “A Guy In Vancouver” (red Euro coupe) and “Matthew with two T’s” (white base sedan) for their excellent Lumina pictures, obtained via the Curbside Classic Cohort. Blue sedan photographed in the Lower East Side.

89 Comments

For the B/C bodies, 1971-76 were the warm-up act. At least the final 1977-96 fullsizers were good (overall). But I’d call the 2008 Malibu the first-EVER quality-feeling FWD offering from Chevrolet.

When you benchmark a competitor, you have to consider how that competitor might be when your model finally makes it to market. The first FWD Malibu used the then-current Accord as a benchmark…and when it came to market it was already obsolete.

At least today GM acts like they’ve got their game on and is building some great cars, like they did before the 1970’s. They should’ve been doing that all along.

Havent seen one of these Lumina the Chevrolet Luminas that washed up here were rebadged Holden Commodores bound for middle eastern markets or maybe they came in with South African immigrants, anyway a far cry from the US version.

The write-up here hits just about every point with these cars.
When the Lumina first hit showrooms, my aunt and uncle who had only ever owned Chevys (at that point, for nearly 50 years or more) considered replacing a lightly used Impala sedan with a “more economical” Chevy. They said that just looking at the interior they knew Chevrolet was not “thinking clearly” when their salesman touted the Lumina as THE replacement for their Impala. The still bought a new Chevy, but it was a Caprice.

A co-worker traded a VERY used Tempo for a nearly as used (up) Lumina in the mid 90s….what an underwhelming POS. As a “value-priced” car, the Lumina represents how little Chevrolet and GM VALUED it’s customers.

Somewhat in defense of the Lumina, the 2nd generation car looked decent enough, at least on the outside. I even prefer the companion Monte Carlo to the later (2000-2006) Monte.

BTW, aren’t there several websites devoted to the 3.1/3.4….as THE worst GM engine?

The 3.4 Twin Cam DOHC engine had it’s issues, namely it was a pain to work on and more complex plus it had a timing belt that required some training to get right with replacement. But saying the 3.1 was a bad engine is very inaccurate. The 3.1 was many in a long line of 60 degree pushrod V6’s that GM introduced in 1979 in the X-body cars for the 1980 model year. The 3.1 in the 1990-94 Lumina was actually a very good motor with loads of 200-300K mile examples still on the road running well.

The second generation Lumina was most certainly an improvement over the 90-94. Yes the base models went to lower cost drum brakes (just like the Taurus) but the later 1996 onward Monte Z34 and Lumina LS and LTZ re-instated the rear disk brakes as std fare.

The Lumina smacks of a product that no one was responsible for. I get the feeling that Chevrolet and GM’s corporate culture was about more about CYA rather than producing superior automobiles. It was probably a case of “the Lumina is doomed to mediocrity, at best, no matter how hard you work on that interior design or transmission.” Built to a price and it showed everywhere. It’s a perfect business school case study of muddy leadership from the top down leading to inferior products and probably a demoralized workforce.

This is exactly how GM was structured by the 80s. Executives were promoted quickly, resulting in constant management changes during each and every project. The result was that nobody was ever responsible for a new car from start to finish.

I know the A bodies get(far too much) criticism around here, but here lies a huge waste. Spend 7 billion to add 10 inches of length and 350 pounds to your midsize offering is a huge disaster of design. There was no more usable space. The money spent was not made back on incremental sales, in fact some of the old models were kept around to keep market share. A much lighter restyle of the A body could have kept it up to date and not destroyed the profits from it.

Toyota, for example has kept the Camry and the Corolla on the same platform now for 20 + years, while doing needed styling, power and safety updates every 4-5 years. Toyota is now what GM was and this is a much better system. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater with a completely new platform. It is just too expensive. Already by the nineties, Gm was borrowing the money to do it and just taking too big a chance.

The Celebrity needed a fourspeed auto for the iron duke a more modern dash with airbags and that new cheap system that combined abs and traction control. The new body should have been stylish while being lighter, stronger and easier to assemble. Just good engineering. Nothing more, nothing less.

Completely agree. GM of that era would have been better off with J (Compact FWD), A (Midsize FWD), H (Large FWD) and B (Large RWD) platforms. Skip W, N, L, P90, Saturn and use the $$$ saved for refinements and continuous improvement.

I’d amend that and keep the Saturn car project but not the division; it would give room for the J body to move upmarket with the program that yielded the first Opel Vectra and fill in for the departing/nonexistent Ns. In both cases there would only be Chevy and Pontiac versions with the latter having a high level of standard equipment and noticeably sharper, sportier handling than the Chev.

Keeping the Saturn powertrains would have been a good move, their OHC I4 was much better than the Quad-4. Their 4 Speed Auto was decent as well.

GM had this strange fixation on tweener cars at that time, as if there were throngs of people who wanted a J-Car with four inches more wheelbase, or an A-Car with three inches more width. Meanwhile everything they made had the same Playschool grade interior trim and peeling paint…

As far as I’m concerned, the ancient A-bodies were tons better than these pieces of junk. Better styling, nicer interiors, more comfy seats and lighter with better gas mileage too! GM just never really learned from past mistakes did they? A $7billion boondoggle.

The W-body Lumina was for sure roomier inside with greater width and legroom and even better visibility compared to any A-body. I know because when we stuff me and 3 buddies into my friend’s 1995 A-body Buick Century there is noticeably less legroom and shoulder room and even headroom. Hop into his dads 1990 3.1 Lumina and we fit far better in that car and can stretch our legs out more. As stated in the article the A-body had a much more dated suspension, a far less rigid chassis and rode with less control. It is amazing the difference in suspension between those two cars despite the Century being a 5 year newer vehicle. The 90-94’s Lumina’s biggest weaknesses were the dash, the optional seats were lacking and a bit too firm and the rear disk brake slides were known to seize up if the customer didn’t regularly use the e-brake.

During my short commute I will see two or more Luminas along the way. Regardless of their shortcomings described here, they appear to be durable and have found some kind of following with those who want cheap and reliable transportation.

I have very mixed feelings about these first generation Luminas. On one hand, they were indeed inferior to the Taurus in most respects. In particular, the exterior styling was already old upon introduction, with the interiors extremely dated looking, and powertrain wasn’t impressive in most respects.

That said, while it does lool a bit awkward from some angles, I still find this Lumina a reasonably attractive vehicle, externally. The fact that it came later and was redesigned earlier makes it seem less ancient and boring at the time it left than it’s siblings. Additionally, the horrible looking 1995-2000 Lumina makes the 1990-1994 look a whole lot more appealing.

Also, in reference to the Disney advertisements, I believe the Lumina was proclaimed “The Official Car of Walt Disney World” at its launch. Likely related to GM’s sponsorship of The World of Motion and later Test Track attractions at Epcot since 1982.

I always kind of liked the styling of the original Lumina. It was every inch a Chevrolet, and did not apologize for it. The large greenhouse was appealing to me, in particular. But then in any era, I have liked more traditional styling. The instrument panel was very early sixties Chevy in concept, only with some actual instruments.

The second generation was the deadly sin. The car lost its distinctive style and gained virtually nothing in return. A friend’s octogenarian parents bought one, their first new car since 1955. When the surving parent died, the car was pristine with very low miles. My friend (who had owned many Buicks) had zero interest in it. As did I.

I don’t know if I would call the second-generation Lumina a Deadly Sin. I remember seeing the second-generation Lumina for the first time at the Philadelphia Auto Show, which is held in early February.

This was months before the car was available at the dealers, and I thought it was a big improvement over the first-generation car, both inside and out. It just seemed more substantial and, overall, more “finished.”

Totally disagree about the 1995-2001 generation Lumina. Even Cr and Consumer guide said it was a better car than the then current Taurus, especially when it went on to the horrible jellybean fish face style. Everything from the dash to the suspension to the engine were much improved, the seats were more comfortable, it had more features like std dual front air bags and ABS was included on all but the basic models. It was also considerably more refined and more in tune with what everybody else was doing with rounder smoother styling. I have driven, owned and sold bucket loads of Lumina’s over the years. The next gen was a far superior car in every way and we much preferred it to the ugly ovoid 1996 Taurus.

I never paid much attention to the Lumina sedans or coupes but I did like the van but on that brochure it says it debuted in ’90 and I could’ve swore it was a ’91 release year.
The Lumina cars nowadays here in Florida seem to be the bottom of the barrel selection when you go to one of the many used car/buy-here-pay-here lots and you know, the paint on most of these seem to have held up fairly well in the sun.
My mom’s boyfriend at the time in ’95 had the van and it’s much longer outside and roomier then it portrays from the outside for those that have never peeked inside one of those spaceship styled vans.

I have nothing good to say about these cars at all. The styling looked hideously out-of-proportion, with a sagging beltline and a nose and tail that were stretched out on a torture rack. It barely looked passable when it was drawn up in the 1980s, and it looked outdated as soon as the cars appeared. Some of the details like the segmented full-width taillights seemed to be weird for their own sake, and the whole thing reeked of a stillborn H-body design that was skewed, cut, and shrunk to fit the W platform. The interior was an unergonomic triumph of symmetry and straight lines over function. Gauges were illegible, controls were strewn all over the place. Performance was decidedly mediocre…barely an improvement over the Celebrity, which in all likelihood was a more durable car.

And what about safety? In 1990 the Taurus offered a driver’s side airbag, and by 1994 just about every real competitor had two…but the first-gen Lumina had none at all, which was inexcusable for the market segment it was in. If I recall correctly, the initial crash test result for these cars was so bad that the seatbelt literally snapped in half! The seatbelts themselves were the cut-rate GM “passive restraint” solution, 3-points mounted to the doors with the premise that people would keep them fastened all the time and slip under them as they climbed inside…in reality, the only place I ever saw them fastened like that was in GM dealership brochures. Better hope a door doesn’t pop open in a crash, because then you’d be without any protection at all…and given the mediocre dynamics of the Lumina, I wouldn’t trust one to keep you out of a collision in the first place.

The 1995 version was better in most ways, and if anything it offered dual airbags and was more pleasant to look at. It was the car that should have debuted in 1990 or earlier…but of course, that didn’t happen, did it?

The first-gen cars were never competitive with the Taurus, and there was no reason why anyone with half a brain would buy one (or want to buy one) at all unless they were a bean counter with a rental fleet. Indeed, to me the first-gen Lumina epitomizes General Motors at its absolute nadir of corporate arrogance and myopia. “We won’t even try to build a good car, but tough shit: We’re GM. We own the market. What else are you gonna do? Not buy a Chevy?”

FWIU (and I had experience with a Geo Metro so equipped) those belts worked day-to-day and if the (supposedly beefed-up) door latch held would keep you safe in a crash, if you were short and/or driving a two-door model.
4-doors had the belts so far forward that tall people ran the risk of building so much momentum by the time they reached the seatbelt that it couldn’t keep them from hitting the dash…

And I tried leaving it buckled with the door open, once, for curiosity’s sake. Worked well enough getting out, but getting in the lap strap ended up running just below my knees!

This is the first Ive heard if, much less seen a manual in any of these!!! I remember when these came out. Taurus who? Those are all sedans, so they were as nonexistent to me as any other 4 door. The z34 coupes were sharp, like a better proportioned Beretta. The frumpy Monte Carlo that supplanted these was such a step backwards,especially in styling.

I think that one problem the Z34 coupes had was that there intended market was not ready to accept front wheel drive. The styling was not aiming at Acura Legend coupes, this was aimed directly at the Monte SS crowd. They did not want it as they were heading for trucks by the nineties.

A Z34 was nearly identically priced to a Chrysler LeBaron GTC coupe in 1992, the only truly similar competitor outside of GM itself. The Legend was nearly twice the price, and nowhere near comparable. Honda Accord coupes could be more expensive…

You don’t think a prospective Lumina coupe buyer, especially if they were eyeballing the Z34, might cross-shop a Thunderbird/Cougar? I also don’t think that it’s outside the realm of possibility they might have looked at Accord or Camry 2-doors.

Having grown up in Michigan, these cars were everywhere, and I know a lot of people who had the first gen as their first car. I had a 1996 Lumina as my first car. It was perfectly adequate, but it was weirdly optioned. It was a base model with the up level cassette radio, alloy wheels, four way manual adjustable driver’s seat, but yet no ABS or power trunk release.

Soon after getting it at 140k in 2004, the driver’s door exterior lock stopped working, so the only way to unlock it was from the passenger’s side door. Fortunately it had power locks! And the cruise died. But we put over 20k on it in a year and a half, and it never left my sister or I stranded. It got replaced with a 1996 Concorde LXi that my mom handed down to us. My sister hated the Concorde, and I liked it.

Now I drive a 2005 Impala LS. Rather fitting that I followed the lineage down. But I probably won’t get another GM sedan. None of the ones after my Impala really interest me…

I never was a fan of the sedan version of the Lumina, but the coupe always looked sharp to me. To me these cars were just another example of GM mediocrity. I knew a few people that owned these and they liked them for what they were – decent, basic mid-sized transportation, nothing more and nothing less.

With all their money and technology, you would think GM would have made more memorable, innovative cars. When they had a hit, it was truly memorable. I think the downsized ’77 B-bodies were one of their greatest hits. The original Cadillac Seville started the smaller American car luxury trend. Even the downsized E-bodies sold very well, considering they were an expensive personal luxury car. But they never had something like Ford’s Taurus to brag about, just a lot of mediocre mid-sized cars running around. And where they should have spent “billions” being not only different but better, they settled for just o.k. and mediocre. Typical GM, typical boredom.

I always disliked the styling of these. The greenhouse was way too tall for the body. What should have been sleek looked like the upper and lower halves had been designed for two different projects. Just mangled looking. Wheel wheels almost to the C pillar. What awful proportions.

At least the segmented tail lights gave some hint of Chevrolet legacy styling. The front is the only appealing aspect of it.

The 95 was far more integrated and there wasn’t really an awkward angle to it, unlike the first Lumina.

I totally agree here. I can’t understand what GM styling was thinking with that greenhouse reaching so far down into the doors, and making the place where it meets the rear wheels super awkward looking

I like the proportions of both of the Luminas. Especially the ’95-’01’s. Our family still owns one…BUT…it became the most unreliable car in our family’s automotive practice. It is powered with the 3.1 Litre V6 SFI. This engine seems to be reliable. The front half shaft’s seal of the transmission’s differential seems the most unreliable feature in our Lumina (precisely the 4T60-E) story. It could simply fall out for some unknown reason when driving. And it happened. The oil has leaked and the differential went broken. It has the 4T60-E. The same situation almost happened with our early 3.4 Lit. Trans Sport (Montana) which shares the same automatic transmission with the ’96 Lumina Base. Fortunatelly we have observed the same upcoming syndrome of that ominous seal right before it was ready to fall off. Just in time we replaced it and have saved us from another differential incident. These vehicles are giving moderate driving pleasure because of their smoothness…BUT…when I’m on some longer trips with any of these cars…I’m always suspicious (and a bit nervous) about those unreliable half shaft seals.
Another annoying thing IS that for whatever reasons it’s almost impossible to keep the Check Engine indicators hold off in both of the cars. All of the sensors has been replaced but after a month or two the indicator bulbs lits up again and again and again…

I liked the styling on both the first and second gen Lumina sedans, but the first gen in particular ticked all my reject buttons – in particular the door mounted seatbelts. Generally the least weird of the W is for Weird body cars.

While not a huge fan of any Taurus styling (until the current model), there was little doubt the Taurus was consistently a better car than its Chevy competition during the Celebrity and Lumina mid-size years.

I did see the Lumina win one conquest sale over the Taurus. My older neighbor when growing up had:

The Taurus four banger was such a dog (and rarely ordered) that it totally turned him off on the idea of another – and sped up his replacement cycle. Ford was smart to can the four banger if they couldn’t make a decent car with it – too much risk of alienating owners from future Ford purchases.

Chevy canned the 4 banger by 1994 with the 3.1 140 Hp V6 std tied to the 4T60E transaxle. Really the only 4 cylinder Lumina’s we have ever come across have been 1990 base model sedans. Have never ever seen a 1991-93 4 cylinder Lumina and sales charts show that the 3.1 was ordered in 90 some odd percent of these cars after 1991.

I had a ’90 Cutlass Supreme International sedan with the 3.1 I bought at twenty in 1993 and I drove it 433 000 km on top of the 56 000 it had when I bought it. I am far too familiar with the w-body platform’s shortcomings.

The alternators were good for 60 to 80 000 km tops.
The dashboard pad peeled up at windshield, the carpet unglued from the doors, the turn signal mechanism failed twice and would sometimes emit smoke (google it)
Later in life the rubber strut mounts also failed and the struts punched through the top of the wheel wells.
The rubber caps on the ends of the fiberglass transverse springs would fall out leaving the spring banging against the bottom of the rear strut assembly which would eventually cause it to split lengthwise and break.
Rear calipers guaranteed to seize because of the slider design.
The rear door openings had air vents cut into the body without a proper grommet which would channel every drop of water above it down into the rocker panels that rotted out as a result.
The rear engine mount bolts would pull through, separating the mount from the body, hopefully only one side at a time.

That’s all I can think of at the moment, I’m sure I’ve forgotten a lot.

I am still trying to get my head around the story of a car that went 489k km that was even bought used. Where are the terms heck of a value, or what a long life. Did you expect 600k? 700k? I am not trying to be snide, but how can it be said to be of poor quality? Do you think you put too much into it later in it’s life to keep it going?

The original engine blew up spectacularly at 300 000 and I swapped in a wrecker motor because I couldn’t let it go. The original transmission shortly afterward and again replaced.

I wouldn’t part with it because i paid the equivalent in 1993 of $20,000 in today’s money after saving up for years as a teenager. I really wanted a 90/91 Maxima SE but didn’t quite have enough. I know that car wouldn’t have been trouble free but would’ve saved me countless headaches in comparison.

Thanks for the further info. I guess I am more from the day that getting 160k km meant that the car was good and the owner did a good job taking care of it. 90 was the year the Cutlass International could have had the HO Quad 4 with the getrag five speed. I wonder if anyone got such a long life out one of those rare birds?

I put 1500 miles on a new (rental) 1990 Lumina with the 3.1l and the 4-speed auto trans, during a round trip from Ely, NV to Tri-Cities, WA (1969 Cadillac ambulance broke down south of Ely and I had to get my friends back home, as well as retrieve the necessary repair parts – story forthcoming – Paul, I just located my box of pictures in storage over the weekend, so hopefully this coming few months I can start to put together some submissions for you).

I liked the car – it was quiet, drove well, and returned over 30mpg on the highway (which amazed me to no end, every time I checked the mileage at each fillup).

A couple of years later, I was given a test drive (by one crazy salesperson who was hell-bent on showing me what the car could do) in an orange-red (of course, weren’t they all?) Z34 with a 5-speed manual. He not only drove off the edge of an interstate on-ramp onto the steep, rocky bank (why????? – we weren’t in a Cherokee), but we also did a full-antilock 60-0 stop only 150 feet or so from a stop sign at the end of an off-ramp (scared the bejeebers out of me as I though for sure that we were going to blow through the intersection). So I have actually been in the unicorn Lumina with the 5-speed manual transmission. Only years later did I learn from others what a repair headache the 3.4l was.

Two things. Didn’t GM steal the Chevrolet development budget for years to fund Saturn? Also Toyota has faithfully sold Camrys and Corollas for years and years and years. Likewise Honda with the Civic and Accord. Look at their resale values compared to GM resale values. Chevy has had countless brands over the last twenty five years. People have to know that whatever they buy, it’s going to be an orphan when they are ready to sell it. This screws resale values and ruins customer loyalty. Although, to their limited credit, after being hit in the head with the stupid stick enough times, Chevy does seem to be hanging on to the Malibu and Impala brands.

GM had a lengthy tradition of phasing in new model names (or trim series names, if you prefer) every few years while then progressively demoting the previous ones to fleet status. The nonautomotive marketing-type people to whom I’ve mentioned this seemed to think it made perfect sense, although if nothing else, it suggests an ill-founded confidence in a limitless supply of good brand names. (Even notwithstanding the comparative merits of the products, I would find it hard to argue that “Lumina” is a better name than “Bel Air,” for instance.)

WRT to the naming conventions, I’m unsure. When I’m looking for a new car, I want a new car, name and all. If you say Civic to me, my mind immediately goes back to the 1970’s to a car that is smaller than the current Fiat 500. I’m sure for younger folks, Civic means a car that is roughly the size of the Pontiac G6.

If you say Celebrity or Lumina, I can place the car in time and size. With the re-use of the Malibu name since 1997, we have to specify *which* version we’re talking about: the L body? Epsilon I? Epsilon II?

I’ve always found the 1990 through 1993 Lumina sedans more attractive than anything 1995 and later. If only its quality was as attractive. If only all of General Motors’ cars were built better than they were/are.

There’s a lot of hate for the Lumina here. I’m on the opposite pole.
I had a 1993 Lumina Coupe with the 3.1 and it was a great car. So good I owned it twice! The only mechanical issues it gave me were a bad EGR and a failed fuel pressure regulator. It had well over 170k on it when I sold it the second time.
The 1992 Lumina Z34 I had was another great car. I bought it in 2000 with really low miles. I owned it for 2 years and it never gave me a problem. Which makes me think all these horror stories are overblown trash talk.

By 1993, the Lumina had been in production for several years. When it wanted to, GM did work to eliminate the trouble spots on various new cars. You may very well have been the beneficiary of that sort of effort.

During the 1990s, I was a member of the local chapter of the Oldsmobile Club of America. One of the fellow members worked at a large, local Chevrolet-Oldsmobile dealership. He didn’t have many good things to say about the 3.4 DOHC V-6. And he was a diehard GM fan. I never heard him say anything bad about the 3.1 V-6.

As a used car dealer part owner going on 22 years of being in this business I have to agree somewhat on the over exaggerated hate these cars get on this site. yes the 90-94’s had there issues and the lack of a driver’s air bags was rather sad by 1994. But they did have ABS on more models than the Taurus, especially when we went to the auctions to buy these types of cars seeing 90% of the Luminas with ABS (1990 excluded) and very few GL Taurus’s with it. The Taurus cars of this time era 1990-95 also seemed to suffer far more trans axle failures, suspension woes such as broke springs, bad tie rods and ball joints etc. The Vulcan was a great motor but anything with the crap 3.8 Essex V6 was looking for trouble. The Taurus drove better in base form but the Euros handled better. We rarely ever came across a 3.4 Twin cammer but usually avoided it like the Ford 3.8 when a higher mileage example turned up.

We still come across nice clean examples of both of these cars to this day and each has it’s pluses and minus. But to say the Lumina was a POS or a total failure is inaccurate.

My mother had a `93 four door with the larger six and auto in an Arctic blue color.Can`t really say we had any major problems with the vehicle.It was a pleasant car to drive and it really felt like a true full size car inside. The door mounted seatbelts were a non issue because I never used then, and the dash instrumentation was sparse.There was good visability and the manual adjustable drivers seat was comfortable on long drives. About the only problems we had was when the horn button “locked up” rendering the horn useless, but our local Chevy dealer fixed it right the first time. Also, the non-spring loaded outside mirrors had a habit of breaking off the car, but a friend and I fixed them by putting a block of wood inside them and epoxying them back in place. We made many long trips with it, and at least four long drives to the South. On its eleventh year with about 107,000 miles on it, it died in its tracks when the transmission crapped in Freehold, NJ. My mother bought a 2004 Saturn Ion after that, but like they say, thats another story.

Thank you, thank you! I forgot the name of the color, but you are right. It was a very polarizing color-you either loved it-or hated it, no middle ground accepted. The car did look good in this color and it was easy to spot in any parking lot.

A local car service company in Brooklyn, NY had a small fleet of the four cylinder Luminas. They were painted black and had gray fabric upholstery, but they did have air conditioning.They were repaired at a local garage and they seem to have been taken good care of. They were probably `91s, but some were still in use as late as about 2002 or 2003.

I rented a 1991 ( or maybe it was a 1992) Lumina Euro Sedan during a trip to Nashville TN. The car was tomato red with a beige cloth interior. I found the red color hideous and it clashed with the beige interior. Besides that, the car was extremely comfortable, had a good sized trunk, got great mileage and the interior was nice and bright due to the large, out of proportion side windows.

I have to say, I found the exterior styling pleasant, but from certain angles the side windows looked way to large and the A pillar had a strange angle to it. But, I felt the Lumina Sedan looked way better than the other GM W bodies, with the Cutlass Supreme being the ugliest, followed by the Grand Prix Sedan, and oh yeah, the Regal. Was there also a Century version? The extra rear windows on the Grand Prix and Regal made the greenhouse totally bizarre looking. Oh snap ! The Cutlass Supreme’s greenhouse was even worse with that ugly out of proportion wrap around rear window!

When I see this car, I always want to sift through the forensic evidence, like a detective on “CSI Detroit”, to figure out what the hell happened. The horrific crime in question of course was the destruction of an iconic American company, but understanding how on earth they produced what they did when they did is not easy to decipher.

Take this W-body Chevrolet sedan. As William notes, Chuck Jordan said it was designed “7 years earlier” which would have put it in 1983. Was it initially drawn then, or ready to be launched then? After all, according to The General’s platform update schedule, 1983 was the year that newly downsized FWD “full size” cars were set to appear. Buff Books and Car Preview Guides of the late 70s and early 80s all cited this schedule. But then nothing happened. Rather than a wholesale revolutionary wave like the 1977 big car redo, a few models trickled out for MY85 (C-body Olds, Buick, Cadillac), a few for MY86 (88 and LeSabre), one for MY87 (Bonneville). But there was never a Chevrolet. It seems impossible to me that GM wasn’t planning to replace the phenomenally popular Impala/Caprice with a FWD car for the early 1980s. And from a design standpoint, I have to think that a lot of elements that wound up on the 1990 Lumina were originally intended for the stillborn FWD Chevy full sizer.

As Andrew T. notes in his comment, the W-body Lumina looks like GM took an H-body styling concept and just sized it to fit. The Lumina had larger exterior dimensions (near H-body sized exterior) but no more interior space than the other W-body cars. So the Lumina was a “mid-size” that was about as big as a “full-size.” Confusing to say the least, and the car wound up being poor as a Celebrity replacement (too big) or a Caprice replacement (too small).

Another mystery was the GM10 platform name. The N-cars were GM20s, and they launched for MY85. So how could the first GM10 not arrive until MY88? When was it originally scheduled to appear? Were those supposed to be the new mid-size cars due for 1984? They would have been much more impressive then (pre-Taurus) than in 1988. Plus people were still buying personal luxury coupes in pretty decent numbers in 1984.

It just boggles the mind trying to sort it all out. This Lumina (horrible name too) is one of GM’s many examples of the wrong car at the wrong time, with product planning and industrial timing going horribly off track. Will we ever discover what actually happened? They mystery continues…

Great post. Also remember that, in 1984, Roger Smith launched his infamous reorganization of GM, which caused havoc within the company, and delayed the introduction of several vehicles.

I believe it was Chuck Jordan who claimed that, after the debut the Taurus and Sable, GM pushed back the introduction of the GM-10 cars because they looked too much like the new Ford twins. Whether that is really what happened, or GM was trying to make excuses both for losing styling leadership to Ford, and the chaos caused by the Smith-instituted reorganization, is something that warrants further investigation.

It doesn’t make much sense for the GM-10s to come out much earlier. Remember the A body was new in 1982, and advanced for it’s day, and reasonably successful. There would have been no reason not to expect a normal 6-7 year life span.

Agree that this is an excellent post. It was just plain confusing to watch the decision making and odd product launches, along with the few product cancellations that made for a bizarre and bloated line-up across the GM spectrum during the 1980s and 1990s.

I recall from the car mags that the basic Lumina sedan concept spent some time among the planners as the Caprice replacement, but after gas prices stabilized, a desire to keep the RWD Caprice going prevented this. Also, I’m sure that an H body was at least considered for Chevy, and as noted this general style was likely what it would have looked like. I seem to recall that a late styling decision was to give this car very traditional Chevy tail lights when it was thought that it might be introduced as the Caprice.

Owning a 89 celebrity i have to say the lumina is a interesting looking car for its day. Yet the Lumina looks and probably feels cheap compared to the Abody’s. There is so much hate for the a platform yet the w body crappy and odd ball looking compared to the a platform. Great article, better than the A platform bashing article.

I wasn’t bashing the A-Body, I just was saying it stuck around for too long without sufficient revisions. If you want to see a venerable platform, look at the W-Body… the same basic platform has been in regular production since 1988, but a key difference is there have been extensive visual overhauls and revisions made.

I also made it perfectly clear in my Century/Ciera article that I had nothing against the first several years of A-Body production, but it was left to stagnate and GM kept it around at the expense of the expensive W-Body platform’s sales.

Co-worker had one of these until recently with the front bumper falling off and the trunk held closed with a bungee cord. I remember seeing these on display when I went to Walt Disney World in 1989 (probably at World of Energy)

CC Effect–I was behind a Lumina Euro coupe on the highway last night. First coupe I’d seen in ages, and I was reminded that the couple was a nice-looking design, even though the one I saw was quite battered.

On the coupe or sedan, the Euro (or Z34) package helps the styling, as the long, shallow spoiler helps correct the slight “droop” of the trunklid.

I remember almost buying a Z34 Lumina – I thought it looked pretty damn sharp. In the end I bought my 1991 S10 Blazer instead. I still have that Blazer, but I doubt I would have kept the Lumina as long.

I did own a Regal Gran Sport for several years – it really soured me on rear disk brakes. Was so glad my ’94 and ’99 Bonevilles had rear drums.

I did like the “Torch Red” color available on the Lumina in the early nineties…I liked it so much I painted my ’68 Mustang that color.

I’ve mentioned this before on this blog, but I have a buddy who had a Euro Lumina that ran for 17 years and 300K miles on the original 3.1 V6 motor. I did like the feel of the interior with the really big windows. No current car comes close to that feeling, they all feel like armored cars, which in reality, is what they are.

I’ve often thought that the original W body Lumina is GM’s interpretation of an 80’s Accord; all of the space and airiness of big windows and a low seating position, but the with the red-blooded American feel of power and torque from the lusty 60 degree V6. At least until you got into the higher rev ranges. Then it got asthmatic.

Still, between the two, give me a Lumina.

I’ve always like the early 90’s Lumina family, the coupe, sedan and (minivan) wagon; shades of the 1960’s. Too bad the execution was sub-par.

Funny but I have never driven or owned a 1995 -2001 generation that didn’t feel as solid as a rock and rattle free. Anybody that drove my two Luminas always used to comment on how solid and quiet these cars were.

It’s hard to imagine but its true that ALL 4 of these Black 4 Door Sedans were indeed Chevrolet Luminas. The first two on the top photos were exactly related FWD W-Body Cars along with the Philippine version middle row right which was indeed our version of the Buick Century/Regal 4 Door Sedan. These were Front Wheel Drive. The middle row left was the Middle Eastern 4G Holden Commodore VE sourced Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedan which were our versions of the Pontiac G8 and then later on becoming Chevrolet SS 4 Door Sedans. The last Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedan on the bottom row center was our Cadillac Catera 4 Door Sedan based from the 3G Holden Commodore 4 Door Sedan. The Holden sourced Chevrolets were Rear Wheel Drive however.

Two Weeks and a Day Ago, I have posted the numerous versions of the Chevrolet Lumina 4 Door Sedans three of which were FWD W-Bodies while the other two were RWD which were either 2G Opel Omega/3G Holden Commodore based Cadillac Catera or the 4G Holden Commodore 4 Door Sedan based Pontiac G8/Chevrolet Lumina/Omega/SS. Now in this comparison which were Two Door Coupes, its the 1991 FWD W-Bodied 1991 Chevrolet Lumina 2 Door Coupe vs. the 2006 Holden Monaro 2 Door Coupe based Chevrolet Lumina for the Middle East Market and Pontiac GTO for the U.S. Market.

Lumina. Oddly it sounds a lot like the chemical used to find blood spatters.

And the Lumina was evidence that GM took one to the head and was never right afterwards. Has there ever been a company that consistently offered a string of worthless products like GM. The fact that they had so many divisions with so many of the same disasters magnified the putridity of that era. Pretty soon the slippery slope had been reached and the corpse eventually made it to the bottom.

I remember when the Lumina first debuted in 1990. While its build quality may have been questionable next to the Toyota Camry, I found its styling more attractive than the Camry. I found it more attractive than the generation that followed this. I regret that I’ve never driven one, nor have I owned one, so I have no idea what it’s like to drive.